The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Cometh the New Ice Age?

Text Size

Maybe not, but even some mainstream scientists say temperatures are going down and are likely to stay there for decades. Not quite the runaway warming that we were threatened with. (Or promised, as I thought of it. As I view the snow that remains piled up in my yard more than three weeks after the pre-Christmas storm, I am praying for global warming!)

Reports the Daily Mail:

The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world's most eminent climate scientists.

Their predictions - based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans - challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy's most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in
summer by 2013.

According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 - and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this.

North Pole

The scientists' predictions also undermine the standard climate computer models, which assert that the warming of the Earth since 1900 has been driven solely by man-made greenhouse gas emissions and will continue as long as carbon dioxide levels rise.

They say that their research shows that much of the warming was caused by oceanic cycles when they were in a ‘warm mode' as opposed to the present ‘cold mode'.

This challenge to the widespread view that the planet is on the brink of an irreversible catastrophe is all the greater because the scientists could never be described as global warming ‘deniers' or sceptics.

It must be frustrating for the alarmists when the temperatures don't cooperate with their theories.

View all comments (10) | Leave a comment

Patrick | 1.13.10 @ 7:42AM

If I was Al Gore I would say, "You see, I've saved the planet. I saved YOU. I would be honored to receive another Nobel Peace Prize for all I've done to save humanity from total calamity."

Indiana Alex| 1.13.10 @ 8:09AM

I think if you look at the data it's pretty clear that George Bush cured Global Warming.

Spoonman| 1.13.10 @ 8:21AM

Indiana Alex, didn't you mean to state that George Bush had "caused global cooling" - thus depriving all the global warming, global climate change folks their big opportunity to save the worold from us "normal folks"?

JP| 1.13.10 @ 9:24AM

The effect of oscillations like ENSO, the PDO, and the AMO on climate patterns has been out there for years. But, the alarmists that staff the IPCC and other organizations either ignored or belittled the effects of them on climate. Since 1991, we've been blessed by the positive phase changes of the AMO and PDO. The PDO went positive (warm) in 1976, which ushered in a climate regime dominated by El Nino; the AMO went positive in 1991 (warm) and ushered warmer tropical Atlantic temperatures, which kept the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) positive and warmed Europe.

In 2007, the PDO went negative, and it looks like the positive AMO peaked in 2006 and is about to wane. It is due to go negative in the next few years. What this mean is there will be less tropical air going poleward. This will allow frigid artic air masses to build in the polar region and cause the kind of negative Artic Oscillations (AO) we've seen the last 4 weeks to endure. A very slow but steady fall in global temps will result.

Siegfried X| 1.13.10 @ 10:24AM

Global cooling.

When I was growing up all the scientists talked about global cooling and how we were in a mini ice age. The theory was that pollution was shielding us from the sun's rays.

ACynic| 1.13.10 @ 10:47AM

I sincerely hope that Michael Mann of Penn State - of "hockey stick" fame is investigated, and, if found that he engaged in fraud, is prosecuted and sent to jail - in Fairbanks - for 50 years.

RICKF| 1.13.10 @ 10:58AM

Although oscillations like ENSO, the PDO, and the AMO may indeed be responsible for the movement of warm and cold air masses around the planet, I really don't think they contribute one way or another to the overall global temperature. They just determine where the warm and cold are located. The total extent of Arctic and Antarctic ice masses may be a better indicator of temperature trends taking into account a lag of several years for the temperature changes to take effect. It's similar to an electric stove where it takes a little while for the eye to heat up after it is turned on and similarly takes a while to cool down. No rocket science is involved here. Ocean temperatures follow the same pattern and tend to moderate the changes in energy coming from the sun. Otherwise, we would have drastic swings of global temperature cycling every 11 to 13 years. This said, I would guess that global temps peaked back around 1998 as many have been saying. Arctic ice extent reached a minimum around 2006 due to the still-cooling ocean currents circulating after global temperatures peaked.

JP| 1.13.10 @ 1:39PM

RICKF,

Land has very little ability to store incoming solar radiation as compared to the oceans. The Antartic is a solid landmass, while the Artic is mainly water. The ocean on the other hand stores huge amounts of potential energy. The Pacific Ocean ranges from just south of the Artic Circle to the Antartic, from the Americas to Asia. The tropical Pacific recieves more incoming solar radiation than anyother area on earth. Most atmospheric scientist realize that it is the interaction of the oceans with the atmosphere that controls climate (at least in the short to medium term). The poles are passive in that very little goes on other than thier lack of sunlight. But in decades where El Nino and a positive PDO dominate, large quantities of tropical air are transported poleward and modify the artic and polar air mass source regions. ENSO and the AMO act like giant themostats and regulate the imbalance of energy between the poles and the equator. In decades where La Nina and a negative PDO exist, the lack of advected tropical air allows polar air masses to build and thier transport mechanism (the polar jet) to migrate eqautorward. Changes in the Artic and Antartic are just symptomatic to what is occuring elsewhere -nothing more than teleconnections.

The action is primairily in the Pacific. Most of the major oceanic circulations have thier genesis there. Of course, no one knows what causes the changes in ENSO, the PDO or the AO. Some think the link lies with the Sun, others say it is cloud cover (also linked to the sun). The 15 years in elevated global temps do appear to coincide with changes in solar magnetic activitty, and 2 rather strong ENOS events occured in 1986 and 1998. The MEI numbers remained elevated through most of the early 2000 period. And that might explain how warmer currents in the artic regions caused so much ice loss between 2004-2007.

Stephen Zierak| 1.13.10 @ 11:11AM

What with the return of 1970's concerns about an approaching ice age, wouldn't this mean we need more CO2 in the atmosphere? Those who oppose expanded use of fossil fuels will become environmental criminals. And let's not forget the vegetarians! We need to eat more meat to encourage animal production and the associated increase in methane! You know that the ice age will be man made, and that all the prescriptions will now need to be reversed! Long live environmental nonsense--just as long as it supports the conditions for prosperity and growth. Bring on the ice age fanatics, and ask them whether we won't need more carbon, not less.